Right.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 24th, 2009 / 4 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Right.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The leak from early December that was suggested in a submission in early February--
4 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Binder told me that it was not repaired yet, that it was simply being collected--
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Regan, that's a point of debate.
Mr. Cullen, continue, please. You will have that time added on so you get your full seven minutes.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
So we have three leaks. There was an ongoing leak that was reported by Mr. Akin on January 27. There was a leak in early December. There was a leak just this past weekend, and I'm a little unclear as to whether the leak is still going on.
There are 47 kilograms of heavy water that have been released from this site. Do you consider that a problem?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
If memory serves me right, there are something like 65 tonnes of heavy water in this particular facility. This is on the same order of magnitude as if you had a leak in your faucet at home--you know, drip, drip, drip.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But if the leak from that faucet had nuclear material in it, I wouldn't consider it just a small problem.
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
But that's what we do. We determine the magnitude of the leak and we determine its safety consideration before we consider it to be of significance.
And by the way, as an aside, if you look at our chart, we have a regulatory limit, the maximum allowed in a spill, and then we have an action level, where we mean when that happens you had better come and tell us very quickly, and then the operator is at the administrative level, where some action can now be taken.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If a water spill is under 10 kilograms, does AECL report to you?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
At 10 kilograms, they have the discretion whether to report to us or not.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Here's the funny thing. In the cumulative effect of all these leaks, can this not be a death by a thousand cuts, that small leak after small leak after small leak speaks to the public as a significant problem?
Now the question of communication comes forward as to what's being reported and what's not. Sometimes a small leak, as you're suggesting, was reported just this past weekend. In December we had a press release with admittedly obscure language suggesting some sort of technical problem. What is the safety level, in terms of the amount of becquerels allowed per litre of water in Canada? Do you know?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Yes. The maximum allowed is 7,000.
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Here's where we get into what is a standard. It was an objective and is the kind of objective you want to achieve.
And maybe Dr. Thompson can give a more fulsome reply to that particular aspect.
4 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Mr. Chair, member of Parliament, the State of California has a legally enforceable drinking water standard for tritium of 740 becquerels per litre. That's the same as other U.S. states. The 15 becquerels per litre is not an enforceable standard; it's what is being referred to—
4 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
It's 740.
4 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
That's correct.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's an extraordinary difference, isn't it, in what we determined? Throughout the testimony we've talked about what is safe and not being worried about public concern. The fact that Canada has a limit, 7,000, should give one caution that maybe we should be reporting absolutely everything.
4 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Okay.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Maybe our system here is too permissive about what the public is exposed to.
4 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
To put things in perspective, of all the nuclear facilities operating in Canada, nuclear power plants, the Chalk River site, the level of tritium in drinking water supplies has always been below 20, and in most cases it is below 15. So although the guideline or the standard is 7,000, the regulatory regime that CNSC has put in place to manage releases of tritium to the environment has been very protective of public drinking water supplies. The levels of tritium in public drinking supplies are below 20 in all cases.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You talked about yourselves as the watchdog, right—and you seem to take your jobs very seriously. The confidence from the public to be able to know that the information they're actually getting from such a sensitive place as a nuclear reactor of any kind does not bode well for the industry overall. As you are well aware, the industry is incredibly sensitive to public opinion because they handle some of the most dangerous material known to humankind. I'm finding these ongoing leaks make it very difficult for me to go back to my constituents and say they aren't to worry, these leaks are all being reported, the cumulative effect is being understood, and that 47 kilograms of heavy water is not a problem.